Women were in the US military well before Tailhook. I suggest you do just a touch of research before flinging out events that you feel justify your position.Originally Posted by JMA
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Apples and oranges...
Tell me how homosexuality which is a life choice is the same as being born a women or black? There is no evidence that you are born that way. From my experience working with a genetic researcher, there is no evidence. The researcher didn't have an opinion either way.
You haven't answered the questions.
Homosexuality a life choice? No. People get killed, jailed, fired for being gay. Nobody would choose that. That is simple logic.
What systems and procedures were put in place when women were introduced into the military to prevent such incidents as Tailhook?
I see several points being made and I'll try to address them, but this might become a shoot 'n scoot mission.
Your points:
1. There is no reliable evidence that allowing homosexuals to serve will negatively affect military readiness.
2. There is a poll of military members "who don't seem to care"
3. Trained professionals are not being retained
Response:
1. This is precisely why DADT is in place. Homosexuals and heterosexuals both currently serve in the military without a negative effect upon military readiness. What negatively affects military readiness is the person who possesses dual loyalties. It is a person’s inability to separate, in this case, their sexuality from their duty to follow orders that is the reason for their denial of admission/dismissal from service. Furthermore, those individuals who enlisted/were commissioned with full knowledge of the rules governing homosexual acts and then violated the orders are most certainly not the sort of people that should serve in the Armed Forces. They should not serve because their loyalties are obviously split between following orders and indulging in sexual activities in violation of DADT. Additionally, they have violated their oath to obey the orders of those appointed over them and are only partially dedicating themselves to the service of their country. They are in essence saying, “I will obey these orders, but not those. Oh, by the way, you have to keep me in your Armed Forces, never knowing which other orders I might fail to follow.”
2. Polls have no place in the military. The fact that the military leadership has commissioned a poll regarding this issue is a detriment to military readiness. Orders are to be obeyed, not polled for popularity. Therefore the poll is at best irrelevant and at worst an undermining of the authority of the military heirarchy/chain of command. If the excuse for this poll is that Congress needed "evidence", then the poll should not have included spouses and should have been administered to every member of the Armed Forces.
3. They might be trained, but they are far from professional. People are not being dismissed from the military because they are gay, they are being dismissed because they failed to follow orders and that behavior (failure to follow an order) is not in keeping with the level of honor, courage, and commitment that is demanded of service members by their countrymen. It is for this reason that they are not capable of serving and are not professionals.
This applies equally to those who fail to pay bills, commit adultery, assault another person, are disrespectful to a superior, etc….
This is the image that we must build for our close combat soldier of the future. Not all need apply and very few should expect to join. Any shortcoming in performance should threaten a soldier's place on the team... Those who are willing (and likely) to die for our country should be held to no lesser standard, and those who pay for having such men on the roster should be willing to pay for the privilege of their presence. - Rethinking the Principles of War
This is not about sex. I don't care if you are gay or not (you in general). That is between you and GOD. If I am asked by a homosexual how I feel, they will hear, however I will not "go after" them.
There are real issues that need to be addressed. As some have stated, just because there are no reported issues with people in their military being openly gay, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So if country "A" says we don't allow openly homosexual people in our country we the U.S. government is going to say "too bad" we are going to do what we want? Or will others have to deploy because we can't send openly gay service members? or we ask those who are openly gay to conceal it again?
If a heterosexual male is in the bathroom or in open showers then its ok since their physical make up is male or female, even though they are gay heterosexuals must accept them? Really? How is that not an infringement on their rights? You see now that a male is openly gay I don't want him in the bathroom with me, because I see him as a WOMEN now, since that his sexual orientation is tilted to now, so why would they be in a male bathroom?
The main basis of the argument is, as stated above is the continuing social experiment the military is subjected to. That is divisive and will continue to erode unit effectiveness.
No kidding...
and those who choose to do that are making life choices. It is. No real evidence supports that people are born this way.
I am offering my opinion, no more.
It is IMHO insane to believe that two young guys in Iran decided to fool around so that they can get arrested, tortured then hung... as a matter of personal choice. This homosexual business goes way beyond personal choice.
I hear what you say but we are talking past each other.
First, I oppose having gay or females in the military, certainly in operational units for the very simple reason of the sexual tension that it brings. That may be for those (the majority) who feel uneasy about a new dimension that the presence of gays brings to the casual nudity and brotherly intimacy of the soldiers existence. It is difficult enough to create and develop a level of commeraderie and mutual dependence where one will risk his life for another without the addition of sexual tension I speak of.
Second, the more enlightened European countries view the rampant homophobia and legislative oppression of gays in the US as about as backward as Iran wanting to stone a woman to death for adultery. Get over it.
There is ample evidence that people are born that way. What is currently lacking is set-in-stone proof that sexuality and genetics are linked. Regardless, your argument is spurious. Homosexuality in and of itself is not inherently harmful, therefore there is no inherent cause to ban it or ban its expression. The burden of proof lies on you to show why homosexuality should not be allowed.
In order:
1. The only reason there's a conflict between service and sexuality is the arbitrary rule that only one sexuality is allowed in the service.
2. Horse pucky. Polls absolutely have a place in military service. Soldiers don't stop being people when they sign up. People have needs, opinions, and desires, and while the needs of the military (and the nation, in turn) ultimately override the needs, opinions, and desires of the individual, that does not proscribe the military from simply ignoring those needs, opinions, and desires. It is, in fact, to the benefit of the military to acquiesce to those needs, opinions, and desires as much as possible without detracting substantially from readiness, not the least reason being that soldier whose needs, opinions, and desires are respected--if not always satisfied--is more likely to reup. Moreover, if polls have no place in military service, then why all this hubbub about how letting gays serve openly will affect military readiness? Shouldn't soldiers shut up and serve with their openly gay fellows when ordered to do so, regardless of their personal opinion?
3. I have to wonder why there isn't a crusade against soldiers who give and receive blowjobs. I can tell you with certainty approaching 100% that there are more soldiers who engage in oral sex than gay sex. Why don't we go after those soldiers, who are in violation of the same article of UCMJ as soldiers who engage in homosexuality? Aren't they just as unprofessional? Aren't they also not in keeping with the level of honor, courage, and commitment that is demanded of service members by their countrymen?
Last edited by motorfirebox; 12-21-2010 at 02:53 AM.
Great stuff CavGuy.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
There really is a very worrying undertone coming from the US on this one. What sort of fear underlies that? Are the tough guys afraid they’ll get done from behind? Just don’t drop the soap. The only reason this is such a big deal is because it is turned into such a big deal…..for no reason that I can think off.
Homo sexuals volunteering for the army have a pretty good idea what they are getting themselves into (no pun intended). They are not likely to make their own lives unnecessarily difficult, beyond the inevitable bullying they will receive.
Will there be instances of abuse? Of course, but no more than among hetero’s. And in most cases the homo sexuals are more likely to be the recipients of the abuse, not the other way around.
If a majority of hetero’s feels intimidated by a minority of males who happen to prefer males, think about how a minority of females may feel when surrounded by a bunch of testosterone ridden hetero males.
Would you feel OK with a lesbian in the shower?
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
These females are forced to shower with the testosterone ridden hetero males?
...oh yes and what if the Sgt Major is gay and has a particular interest in 18 year old troopies?
1a. Sexuality is not the issue. The issue is the inability to obey orders. Replace homosexuality with theft/being a thief. The Armed Forces permits thieves/people who have stolen to enlist, yet they are expected to obey orders (Do not violate UCMJ Article 121). A member is not discharged from the Armed Forces because he is/was a thief. They are discharged because during the course of their enlistment they failed to follow a lawful order (Article 92) and stole something (Article 121). The thief's dual loyalty is what makes him unfit to serve in the Armed Forces. This applies equally to all other chargeable offenses.
1b. Your point is that there is an arbitrary rule
1b. Response: It matters very little how you choose to describe it, it is still a rule. Any other point of view is irrelevant in the eyes of the military justice system. If we want to discuss arbitrary rules, then a better example would be the service-wide ban on accessing WikiLeaks from personal computers. Nevertheless, it is still a lawful order and service members are expected not to visit the website because it contains classified material, albeit publically available.
2a. Your point is that polls have a place in the military because soldiers have needs, opinions, and desires which when met lead to higher re-up rates.
2a. Response: A soldier's needs are always met, except in the most extreme of circumstances (cut off from resupply, sustained TIC, etc). A soldier's "wants" is another issue entirely. A military that caters to "wants" and makes policy decisions based upon polls has created a mercenary force that is driven by its desire for personal comfort and gain. This force will abandon its leader when the "wants" are cut-off/reduced or personal comfort is threatened. Machiavelli offers an more in-depth explanation, including how a good leader should interact with his military.
2b. Your point implies that "re-upping" is good for the military.
2b. Response: "Re-upping" is neither good nor bad for the military. It is amoral and does not necessarily convey a benefit to the military. Rather it is an opportunity for a service member to re-obligate themselves to the military and for the military to decide if their services are still warranted. The service member is not owed continued employment and their decision to separate does not necessarily mean that the military was a poor employer.
2c. Your point was that soldiers should shut up and serve regardless of personal opinion.
2c. Response: Partial agreement. A soldier was first a citizen who chose to enlist and to submit himself to the moral code of the Armed Forces. If the code changes during their term of enlistment and it now violates the soldier's beliefs, then they should be allowed to exit the Armed Forces without penalty. If the soldier decides that there is a greater moral good in continuing to serve, then their service should be without complaint.
3a. Your point is that there are more soldiers who engage in oral sex than gay sex and that they are not prosecuted with the same fervor.
3a. Response: There was no presentation of prosecution statistics for heterosexual "oral sex" vs "gay sex" so the point is mere conjecture (I would bet that you are correct though) and it sounds as though the JAG Corps are being accused of selective prosecutions.
"Go after" is nebulous, but I'll assume that you meant prosecute. In order to prosecute a violation, there must be proof for the elements that constitute the violation. Violations without proof for all elements cannot be prosecuted.
3b. Your point was that heterosexual and homosexual violations of Article 125 are equally unprofessional.
3b. Response: We are in complete and total agreement. Violations of the UCMJ are to be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted without regard for rank, gender, occupation, branch of service, etc.
This is the image that we must build for our close combat soldier of the future. Not all need apply and very few should expect to join. Any shortcoming in performance should threaten a soldier's place on the team... Those who are willing (and likely) to die for our country should be held to no lesser standard, and those who pay for having such men on the roster should be willing to pay for the privilege of their presence. - Rethinking the Principles of War
Both of these things already happen. There's a pretty strong likelihood that everyone in this thread has, if they've served in the military, shared a shower room at some point with a gay person. The only difference is that after the UCMJ is changed, there's a stronger likelihood that you'll be aware of it.
And as for the SGM with a hard-on for the younger crowd, come on--you're ignoring that the support and command structure have been enablers for sexual predation for decades (or longer), and you're ignoring that we've had decades to develop tools to deal with it. It isn't suddenly a problem now.
1. The rule is a bad rule. There's no reason to keep it in place. I don't have a problem with prosecuting those who violate it, but the rule should be (and soon will be) thrown out.
2. I'm not talking about catering. I'm talking about making reasonable concessions when there's no reason not to. That's why permanent bases have Pizza Huts and KFCs and Baskin Robbins. These things aren't necessary, but there's little reason not to allow them on post and they can help keep up morale. As for re-upping, again, horse pucky. Retaining experience is, on the whole, good for any organization.
3. I am reasonably certain that the lack of prosecution for blowjobs isn't due to lack of evidence. It's due to lack of willingness to seek out evidence. With blowjobs, there is a general acceptance that the rules are stupid and prosecuting them would not only be silly, it would in all likelihood be bad for the military. Professional people, whether in the military or the civilian world, have a reasonable expectation to be allowed to lead their private lives as they see fit. Again, obviously, the needs of the military override that. I don't see the need, here.
Your position is that the rules are the rules and they should always be followed. Well, that's one way to do things, but since you're removing human judgment from the equation, you have to be extra careful that the rules actually work. Guess what? Article 125 doesn't work.
Last edited by motorfirebox; 12-21-2010 at 02:38 PM.
I suggest you do just a bit more research about things before you start spouting about them. Tailhook wasn't an official military event. Try this for a quick crash course.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Give it a break Steve.
Why? Because your position was disproved? You're the one that brought Tailhook in and implied that it was some sort of official military function. If you're going to use the event to discuss the culture that existed at the time, that's one thing. But you were attempting to link it to government or military policy, and that just won't fly. You've shown the same trait on other threads as well. I think you'd find that your positions might get more respect if you did the basic research.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Yes.
Accepting the fact that a pronouncement of opinion from ones self is no more than that and that others can not only fail to agree but are likely to be correct would also be helpful in that regard...
1a. Your point is that the rule is bad and should be thrown out.
1a. Response: I'm unclear as to which rule you are referring, but I'll address the possibilites. Article 125: I would suggest reading the MCM and Article 125 before it is labelled "a bad rule" and thrown out. If it goes into the trash, then charges for forcible sodomy without consent, sodomy with children under 16, and sodomy with children under the age of 12 are also discarded.
Article 92: Discarding this article would make it permissible to disobey any order or regulation.
Again, this is not about someone's sexual preferences. This is about whether a soldier will follow orders, even when they do not like the order.
2a. Your point is that retaining experience is good for an organization.
2a. Response: "Experience" was not defined. Certainly the military would not want to retain someone who is experienced in defrauding the government or stealing military supplies. The military would want to retain someone who is experienced in areas that contribute to its mission accomplishment. At this point the discussion is going to evolve into a discussion of "filling a billet" vs "adopting a way of life" and it should probably go to another thread.
2b. Your point: Having establishments, like Pizza Hut and KFC, on base is good because it is good for moral.
2b. Response: This will also evolve into a side discussion, but your reasoning takes us into the debate of whether Gen. Charles Dunlap was correct. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/P....cfm#index1992
3a. Your point is that "It's due to lack of willingness to seek out evidence."
3a. Response: Your accusation that the legal systems of all four branches (I include the Coast Guard) are jointly deciding to not investigate and prosecute heterosexual violations of Article 125 is baseless.
3b. Your point is that it would be bad for the military to prosecute heterosexual violations of the UCMJ.
3b. Response: It is never morally incorrect to prosecute a violation of the UCMJ. It is a code of ethics and it must be upheld. Failure to uphold one portion places the rest in jeopardy.
3c. Your point is that military professionals should be able to lead their private lives as they see fit (according to the needs of the military).
3c. I completely agree. This is what DADT permitted. No one will ask about your sexuality (hetero or homo) and you will not talk about/commit acts that will disclose your sexuality. Service members were permitted to operate a private life as they chose, so long as they did not run afoul of other articles and orders. If the act or statement becomes public then it becomes an Article 92 violation and is punished.
4. Your point is that Article 125 doesn't work.
4. Response: Our opinions aside, as they matter little, SCOTUS and the USCAAF have upheld Article 125 and the UCMJ as constitutional.
This is the image that we must build for our close combat soldier of the future. Not all need apply and very few should expect to join. Any shortcoming in performance should threaten a soldier's place on the team... Those who are willing (and likely) to die for our country should be held to no lesser standard, and those who pay for having such men on the roster should be willing to pay for the privilege of their presence. - Rethinking the Principles of War
Bookmarks